Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(A) In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Thana Singh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 354, paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 21 and 27 read thus :-
"1. Leave granted.
6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Sub Fire Officers are within Group XII that included Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, Internal Auditors, etc. therefore, Sub Fire Officers cannot be denied same scales of pay when increased for other three classes of persons within Group XII. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the respondent's plea claiming parity with the employees of the State Government. Observing that the respondents are to be treated on par with other three classes within Group XII of the Board, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.

15. In the year 1988, though the post of Sub Fire Officers has been included in Group XII in one category as that of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors, the nature of work, duties, responsibilities and initial qualifications for recruitment and manner of recruitment to each post are different since all these posts belong to different cadre. The respondents cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be given the similar pay scale as are given to the categories of posts such as Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3477/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2024 undefined Auditors.

3. The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and
4. The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v.

P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850).

21. Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale. As pointed out earlier, the burden lies upon the party who claims parity of pay scale to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities. In the writ petition, respondents have only claimed parity of pay scale with those of the employees working under the Punjab Government which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body. When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert body has taken such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its views and interfere with the same and NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3477/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2024 undefined take a different view.

27. Respondents have not produced any material to show that there is any similarity/identity between the posts of Sub Fire Officers and the Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors in terms of the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and mode of recruitment etc. to apply the principle of parity of pay scale. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Sub Fire Officers are different and parity cannot be claimed merely on the ground that they are categorised in one group. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside." (B) In the case of Vaidya Rosemary Hazkial Ghodhara vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, order dated 5.2.2018 passed in the Special Civil Application No.9620 of 2015, paragraphs No.27, 53 to 59 read thus :-